Tuesday, April 06, 2010

What happened to the U.S. Air Force lesbian who `told'? Don't ask

Air Force Lt. Robin Chaurasiya (right) recalls being summoned to a meeting with her commanding officer at Scott
Air Force Base near downstate Belleville last year.

He read to her a copy of an e-mail that had come to his attention, one that she'd written to a group of friends in which she discussed her enthusiasm about women she was dating.

"He told me, ‘I'm throwing this away, I'm not going to do anything about it. If I were you, I would be pretty upset if someone were making such claims about my character,'" Chaurasiaya said.

Is Chaurasiaya gay? The officer didn't ask. She didn't tell.

Such stilted conversations are common in the military, according to J. Alexander Nicholson III, executive director of Servicemembers United, a group dedicated to the elimination of the "don't ask, don't tell" law that bans gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

They amount to "back in the closet with you!" warnings from those who don't have the stomach for investigatory witch hunts or who don't really care that much if gay men and women are serving in the ranks.

But about a week later, Chaurasiya, who attended Chicago's Illinois Institute of Technology on a ROTC scholarship and will turn 25 later this month, decided to tell.

The "character" remark had offended and troubled her deeply, she said. So she wrote a letter to her commander telling him she'd been dating girls since she was 13, that the stress of concealing her orientation in "the military's homophobic culture" had become unmanageable and that she was therefore unable to "honestly, openly and successfully fulfill" the commitment she'd made when she enlisted at age 17. (Read that letter and other related documents here)

"In all the ROTC paperwork I did sign a statement saying I'd never had any homosexual contact," she said, "But I wanted the career opportunities so badly I was willing to hide who I was and put up with being a second-class citizen. I'm not anymore."

The Air Force, however, won't let her go. Though more than 15,000 service members have been rooted out under "don't ask, don't tell" since the mid-1990s, the law allows the service to keep valuable personnel who admit to being gay "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service," even if they are, in fact, gay.

And, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week (Military's refusal to discharge lesbian a new Catch-22), Lt. Gen. Robert Allardice at Scott Air Force Base made just such a ruling in Chaurasiya's case: Her comprehensive admission — and her recent entry into a civil union with her partner — are evidence that she's trying to force the issue of her homosexuality in order to receive a discharge, therefore she must stay.

Allardice has a point. Chaurasiya does want out in light of her conclusion that she's destined not to receive equal treatment in the military, and that's why she's telling her story in the media. She was unexpectedly called back to active duty last year after spending a year in graduate school, she said, and found herself feeling estranged from military life. She has plans to move to India, her parents' home country, to work with abused children.

Efforts to get comment from Scott Air Force Base officials Monday were not successful.

And while Chaurasiya's case is not a raging injustice — she did get a ROTC scholarship and she is being allowed to serve openly as a lesbian— it does illustrate the absurd and arbitrary nature of the military's policy toward gay people.

The law says, "the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts . . . create(s) an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

"What!?! She wants to do humanitarian work in India?!? Screw our outdated and idiotic policy. We have to keep her here so those kids in India can't benefit from her desire to actually do some real good."

I see absolutely no rason gays and lesbians should not be allowed to serve their country. Seems to work pretty well in Israel and many other countries. I would bet anything if she were a a man this would be a non issue as he would be forced out.

So, let me see - she lied because she wanted the career opportunities so badly. She reaped the benefits from those opportunities, but decided that the environment she lied to get into really didn't work for her. And now, even though she made a commitment, took the benefits - she wants out? Although I empathize with her situation, I'm tired of people using whatever to get what they want and then, when it isn't "perfect" trying to leave their responsibilities to do something else. Sad personal qualities.

1. She knew she was lying when, "In all the ROTC paperwork I did sign a statement saying I'd never had any homosexual contact...But I wanted the career opportunities so badly I was willing to hide who I was..."

So she thinks the truth can be subverted by her own personal "wants," and that's all anyone needs to justify lying?

What a dysfunctional society there would be if everyone thought this way!

I guess if service in the military is viewed as a form of atonement for homosexuals, they don't have a problem with it. If they choose to look upon it that way, there's no reason for DADT to continue.

And I don't fault Ms Chaurasiya for taking advantage of the system, if that's what she did. The military has been taking advantage of the homosexual community for years, while at the same time still disparaging them.

Just playing the system. She got called back on active duty and she didn't want to meet her commitment, so she cried "I'm now gay! I'm now gay!" ... I don't like DADT either, but it's the law ... passed by a Democratic majority Congress in 1992. We as military leaders have to enforce the rule UNTIL YOUR LAWMAKERS CHANGE IT!

This smacks the same as what I saw as a younger Platoon Commander on a Navy Amphib ship ... when women were finally integrated to go to sea, we had 8 on one ship immediately get pregnant so they would have to be sent home.

Now, I really have no problem at all with women and gays serving, as long as they do their job and don't lower our readiness. But don't take my tax money as a ROTC'er, then decide you're too good to pay back your commitment!

ZORN REPLY -- She's not saying "I'm NOW gay." She's saying "I've been gay all along." And they brought it up, she didn't. And she's not saying she's "too good" for anything.

The article is unclear but it seems she attended college on an Air Force 4 year scholarship, all expenses paid. This requires a 5 or 6 year commitment. If she was sent to grad school on active duty school fees were paid and she continued to receive her regular Air Force pay as well. Grad school is another 2 or 3 year commitment. It would seem she clearly took taxpayer money and now wishes to avoid the service requirement that "pays back" the taxpayers. Why not let her out if she pays back the tens of thousands of dollars that her education cost the taxpayers?

ZORN REPLY -- She did tell me in our interview that she was aware of and was willing to pay her outstanding financial obligation under the circumstances.

What if "Dont ask, Dont Tell" were expanded to include "xtians"? Why do "they" feel the need to "come out of the closet" with their "lifestyle choice"? When someone discloses they have "xtian tendencies", doesnt this affect "unit cohesion", (especially to non-xtians)? Did Jesus run around telling everyone that he was a "xtian" and that if "you dont believe like I believe you are going straight to ****!" Just asking some questions here.

And yes I am using the word "xtian" here. I am not referring to Christians, whom I have many as friends and have NEVER forced their beliefs on me.

--"I'll let your first point stand, but your second is simply vile, unsubstantiated, contemptible homophobia. Shame on you. "

Unless you deleted something I see nothing homophobic. The guy said personal wants should not justify lying and it was a good thing not everyone thought that way. You can make that a homophobic rant if you want to but if that is what you referred to I think you are overreacting. If you deleted something you need to say so....

ZORN REPLY -- I did delete something...an entire long passage that dredged up the worst stereotypes of gay people. I should have made that more clear, I guess. What was published was fine.

"ZORN REPLY -- She did tell me in our interview that she was aware of and was willing to pay her outstanding financial obligation under the circumstances."

Yes, I've seen this done during my time in the service, i.e. "pay back the money and then leave" BUT that still leaves a gap in a billet that military leaders budgeted for, made manpower assignment and transfer plans around, and trained her to fill.

It requires her job duties to be picked up by her peers or juniors, and it decreases overall readiness of her unit, especially if her job was a "low-density" Military Occupational Specialty, or a more high-tech job where fewer people serve and receive that particular specialty training.

Not to mention, she took up a school seat and got training that made her competitive for promotion, and it denied her peers that opportunity to do the same.

Your blog is getting spammed by etootoo, EZ, and that's the same person (posting using a variety of names) who regularly spams every single article on the Trib website. I hope you'll block his/her IP address.

ZORN REPLY -- If you see any of those comments actually posted to this blog, let me know. I've trapped a few in my Spam filter but I don't think any have been published. Thanks.

"She did tell me in our interview that she was aware of and was willing to pay her outstanding financial obligation under the circumstances."

Last time I checked, buying your way out of your military obligation went out back in the Civil War era. She took the money and now she has to do the time. This is less about her lifestyle choices and more about wanting to avoid further service as it is disrupting her future plans. If you wanted to make a point about the injustices of DADT you could have found any number of WAY better examples, they are all over the news these days. This woman is not an example of an injustice and I, personally, have zero sympathy for her plight as I reserve that for real injustice. And before the G&L community sympathizers come out ranting, I believe DADT needs to go and would have no problem serving with or letting G&L's serve. However, service comes with obligations that this person is trying to avoid.

In answer to a post above, no, claiming homosexuality did not get you out of the draft. This came back to bite the Army in the rear when they tried to discharge a guy in the late 70's when he was found to be gay. He fought his discharge on the grounds he told them he was gay when he was drafted. Sure enough, right there on the form was the admission he was gay. The Army was forced to allow him to serve until retirement. I was in then and some were affronted but most thought it was absolutely hilarious.

I wonder what the military position would be if this was a gay man instead of a gay woman. Men in general are more tolerable of lesbians than they are of gay men. Since the current policy is to kick out any service who are openly gay, the military needs to stick to their policy. If they don't then the current policy needs to be changed since the military does allow openly gay people to serve.

What part of 'Don't Ask' do some of you seem not to understand? She should have never had to state her sexual affiliation to begin with. In lying, she was following the 'Don't Tell' part of the the law. The military wants gays to lie about this! If any of you think it's unfair for her to leave the military, you should be happy they're forcing her to stay. While proving this law is ridiculous and discriminatory to begin with.

---She DID NOT lie to enlist. The Policy is not that "you are not gay" nor is it "don't ask, don't tell". That is the short name for it. The policy is SAM: no Statement, Act or Marriage. NEarly every single gay person in the military breaks the policy. If it applied to straight people they would break it too because the policy is so wide reaching. It needs to be repealed because it discriminates against gay people who want to have relationships while in the military all while it lets straight people have them.

"Although I empathize with her situation, I'm tired of people using whatever to get what they want and then, when it isn't "perfect" trying to leave their responsibilities to do something else. Sad personal qualities."

So, wait, none of you have ever quit a job before in your entire life? We as human beings aren't allowed to change our minds when circumstances change many years later? Really?

There is a part in the article that says that she was 'called back to active duty' which means she DID complete the four years she said she would, but even if you put that aside....

I think we need some perspective here, people. The military is the only job I know of where you face jail time and serious lifelong consequences just because you want to quit.

For quitter, re your comment "There is a part in the article that says that she was 'called back to active duty' which means she DID complete the four years she said she would, but even if you put that aside...."

Almost every military contract has two element: an active duty portion, and an IRR or Individual Reserve portion ... many in the media seem to not comprehend this or not report it ... service members are usually obligated for 8 years as enlisted (four active/four reserve), and often eight or more for officers (six active duty upon commissioning)...

In addition, as a ROTC scholarship type, she may have received what's called a "regular" commission (not a reserve commission as all others get) ... THAT means you serve at the "will and pleasure" of the President, and in addition to fulfilling your active and reserve time requirements, you must, in writing, request to "resign your regular commission"

YES, the military, and the process for "quitting" is QUITE different, and it is explained in-depth to recruits and officer candidates.

"I think the white, male "military leaders" think its hot to have a lesbian in the service. If this was a man, he would be out already".

Incorrect, I remember just last month a lesbian SSgt in the Air Force was forced out because of a third party outing. (police told command about a marraige certificate when they checked the house for her felon "wife") She was booted quickly because, in writing, marraige is an act of homosexuality, and becasue she was hiding it, she was not trying to get our of her service obligation thus cause for removal.

Whether or not the LT is/was trying to cheat the system is irrelevent. The fact is, is she has spent an ungodly amount of money for the U.S. Air FOrce to train her and fill her full of knowledge and the Air Force will not let her go until her service obligation is fulfilled.

If they bend over backwards and let her go, shame on the Air Force for wasting so much money.

Re ZORN REPLY -- She's not saying "I'm NOW gay." She's saying "I've been gay all along." And they brought it up, she didn't. And she's not saying she's "too good" for anything.

Sir, she clearly broke the current law by "telling" at this later date. If the email the officer brought up that you mention above was between personal email accounts, it should probably not be evidence. If it was written and transmitted on her USAF computer and network, then it is COMPLETELY subject to being monitored (we all sign agreements to the same) and it as if she announced it.

And she admitted, in your article above, that "In all the ROTC paperwork I did sign a statement saying I'd never had any homosexual contact," she said, "But I wanted the career opportunities so badly I was willing to hide who I was and put up with being a second-class citizen. I'm not anymore."

Look, I'm not a total fan of this law, but it has seemed to work well from my observation on 18 years active duty. She, as an adult, knew the law when she signed on, and by her own oath sworn as a cadet, swore to uphold it!

Bottom line, it is an unfortunate situation ... again, DADT is NOT a military policy per se - it's a public law we HAVE to enforce ... I encourage all who disagree with DADT to actively engage their Senators and Representatives to change these laws ... I or other military leaders cannot change or ignore them- we can only administer them to the best of our abilities.

---After re-reading the piece above, and the LA Times, think we should all read this section of the Code .. section (b) (1) (D) below may have been applied in her case, i.e. military officials determined that her "stated" activity did NOT conflict with good order and discipline, and thus, by law, the USAF could retain her.

Again, I do not have the investigation in front of me, and they're many influencing factors - a private, with little/no training invested, may have very well been let go, however, an officer, with a college degree and grad degree, and no doubt extensive specialty training, was deemed as being necessary to remain on active duty and fulfill her initial commitment of active (and follow on reserve) duty.

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

---"So, wait, none of you have ever quit a job before in your entire life? We as human beings aren't allowed to change our minds when circumstances change many years later? Really? "

Military service is not a job, you can be forced to do it if drafted. You can be shot for deserting in the face of the enemy. Moreover, most jobs do not come with prior beneficial considerations like scholarships. No one gave me anything for signing up at my current position so I would owe nothing if I quit.

People need to stop confusing military service with just another job. Her contract required her to serve and obligated her to possible future service. No one forced her to sign on the dotted line so she needs to man up and fulfill her obligations. You don't just "quit" out of that because it is interferring with your life plans. If she didn't want to have that interference she should have paid for her education with student loans like tens of thousands of other students. She tried to milk the system and now she doesn't like the consequences, tough.

Frankly, she shouldn't be an officer with that attitude. We don't need quitters responsible for our children (I have a daughter in the USAF). Heck, we don't need them taking care of orphans. They deserve better since a lot of them are orphans because their parents are or were quitters.

[[I or other military leaders cannot change or ignore them- we can only administer them to the best of our abilities]]

That's what got a few hundred low-level Nazi guards shot after their trials at Nuremburg. "I was just following orders".

I understand that the military is based on the concept of yes-men and BS-swallowers, but even if you wish to define these as "good things", too much of a good thing is bad. It's stifling, orthodoxical, tends toward ossification and becomes the organizational weak point.

[[Frankly, she shouldn't be an officer with that attitude.]]

The attitude I see is strength of character in the face of institutional opposition. You can't teach that. If it gets her less-than-honorably, then she stood her ground the way you want any battalion under fire to do.

Bob M, read the law (link my post above) ... It's not about what the military "wants" .. it's about a public Law that we have to do our best to enforce.

If credible evidence of homosexual activity is brought forward (or discovered, as in this case), we are bound by law to investigate. It is then, based on the law and facts gathered, at the commander's discretion whether an individual case warrants separation.

Even after discovering activity, a commander, under the current law may choose to retain the service member - i.e. if "(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale ...

--- for rwilymz: re: "That's what got a few hundred low-level Nazi guards shot after their trials at Nuremburg. "I was just following orders"."

... I really take offense to that ... unlike the "Nazi guards" I am not following some "Verbal order" given by an individual commander or commanders in the field, I am following a public law of our Nation (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)), passed by congressmen and women, and signed in to law by then-Pres Clinton.

AGAIN, for the love of God, please realize we wish we had better laws! Go hold your congress accountable! Change the law if you don't like it!

ZORN REPLY -- Not only am I siding with John here, I'm taking note that many in the military seem to be doing their best to nod and wink at this law-- to NOT follow orders, as it were -- because they know it's nonsense. I get the sense that's what Robin's commander did when he got that e-mail (it was forwarded to him, by the way, and almost certainly sent from her gmail account or similar). It seems to me he was saying, "Look, OK, maybe you're gay, maybe you're not, I don't really care as long as you don't force me into acknowledging it."
Which is not by any means an ideal situation or solution, but an example of the commander doing his best NOT to be a jerk. So the comparison here to Nazis and so on strikes me as WAY out of line.
John's right. If we, the public, don't like this law, have our representatives change it.

I take offense to a great many things that few, if any people, give two rats' tuchises about. We're not even CLOSE to being even.

I did my time in the Air Farce, and I've spent the nearly thirty years since working for them in one capacity or another. One can agree with the purpose they serve without having to kowtow to their inane, paranoiac and delusional policies.

Just so you know, one of the things I find most offensive is the m/l deliberate dishonesty that people inflict upon themselves; I bawl out Zorn and his escapist liberal fantasies - and his aderants - most of the time I come here. Today it's your turn in the barrel.

Either you know damned well that pestering your lawmakers does no good and you are attempting to rationalize How It Is for the purpose of not having to deal with it by having any, like, *principles*; or you do NOT know that pestering lawmakers does no good and you are an ignoramus.

Between two thirds and three-fourths of Americans want nothing similar to the recent health "care" shinola and Americans pestered lawmakers in increasingly vocal ways as those voters discovered their representatives didn't care to hear it - yet we have it anyway.

Around two thirds of Americans want legal abortions, but not all abortions being legal - yet the issue is still driven by the 1/6 pro and the 1/6 anti, and NO amount of moderating legislation can get passed or enforced without a dogs-vomit of legal posturing to stop it.

A clear majority of Americans detest the Patriot Act - has it died?

A clear majority of Americans want Gitmo closed - open as before.

The majority of Chicagoans and its suburbanites detest stop light cameras - still clicking away.

Do I need to go on? Or are you going to get the point?

Government of/by/for "the people" has become government DESPITE the people.

Thanks for supporting my point, John. I suggested you were being dishonest, and you responded by being dishonest. ...and attempting to shoot the messenger. Good form.

The only real outstanding question now is: who is the primary target of your dishonesty? yourself or others?

You instructed those who didn't like this law to "change it"; I reminded you what any reasonably aware US citizen has known for decades: that getting our lawmakers to do what the majority of the citizens they represent wish them to do doesn't work - with several notorious examples.

You responded by suggesting that it is all a 'red herring' - a term for a rhetorical gambit that introduces irrelevancies in order to change the subject.

The subject is not changed, John. Laws do not reflect the will of the majority; laws reflect the will of those with power.

If something is wrong - and you seem to acknowledge that this policy is, indeed, wrong - then it will not be changed because mere "people" want it made right. It will be changed only by those it affects, by those who are tasked with enforcing it, and honest critics on the sidelines refusing to play along.

This refusal to play along with "wrong" takes principle in all, even those on the sidelines like me; it takes courage and character among those it affects and those who enforce it to defy the "wrong".

You, sadly, do not have what it takes. I might say I'm surprised, but then I've worked with the military for nearly the whole time since Carter. I know better than to expect character and integrity; those are only words and the Regs don't support the actions required of those words. ...which is why I didn't make it a career.

By playing along, you are joining the ranks of the Auschwitz and Treblinka guards who "just followed orders" right up to the gallows. I don't care if you find this offensive; honesty sometimes bugs people.

I am an Army veteran. I served as an Infantry Forward Observer for nine years. Maybe it's nuts, but I have always thought that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in any unit that is not expected to be dug into the side of a hill away from civilization. I also think women and gays on subs may not be the best idea. In other words, I think that we could restrict openly gay individuals to the same units that women serve in. For those in the foxhole, I favor stricter codes because of the nature of the infantry man. If a gay person is in such a unit, they should be "manly" gay and keep it to themselves. The idea of being openly effeminate strikes me as bad for military discipline. The infantry man, especially those in light infantry units, are not your usual civilized man. They are trained to risk their lives, fight and kill at close quarters. There is a certain ethos to these men. Anything which interferes with that or causes a distraction is dangerous. I would include sexual appetite or arousal amongst the most powerful distracters.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.